AIM: This study evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of three glass fiber post removal techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five extracted maxillary teeth were endodontically treated and cross-sectioned in thirds. Presence of cementing agent and dental structure wear were assessed by analyzing images taken before luting of glass fiber post and after removal procedure. Teeth were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 - diamond bur + Largo reamer; Group 2 - ultrasonic insert; Group 3 - carbide bur + ultrasonic insert. Time spent on removal procedures, dental structure wear and amount of remaining cement agent were recorded and results submitted to ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis and Tukey-Kramer tests. RESULTS: Group 1 - 16'46", 33.33% and 6.99%; Group 2 - 12'31", 40% and 7.86%; and Group 3 - 10'24", 80% and 8.14%. Group 3 presented the most effective removal of glass fiber posts. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in efficiency among the evaluated techniques.
AIM: This study evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of three glass fiber post removal techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five extracted maxillary teeth were endodontically treated and cross-sectioned in thirds. Presence of cementing agent and dental structure wear were assessed by analyzing images taken before luting of glass fiber post and after removal procedure. Teeth were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 - diamond bur + Largo reamer; Group 2 - ultrasonic insert; Group 3 - carbide bur + ultrasonic insert. Time spent on removal procedures, dental structure wear and amount of remaining cement agent were recorded and results submitted to ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis and Tukey-Kramer tests. RESULTS: Group 1 - 16'46", 33.33% and 6.99%; Group 2 - 12'31", 40% and 7.86%; and Group 3 - 10'24", 80% and 8.14%. Group 3 presented the most effective removal of glass fiber posts. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in efficiency among the evaluated techniques.